--- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I remember reading that Einstein didn't get the math
> either and that he
> had to have help on that.
When he was a kid he was a bit slow with math. As a scientist he was almost a great mathematician,
>
> One of the foundational myths of modern science, by
> the way, is that
> "Mathematics is the language of nature and that,
> therefore, if you don't
> speak math, you can't do science."
It's not a myth, it's true -- today, anyway. And if you don't know the maths you can't even evaluate whether the statement is true.
>
> To forestall, a lot of churn, I should add that I
> am not contemptuous
> of measurement, or experiment, or mathematics. But
> the reality of
> science is that 1) it proceeds by intuitive leaps
So does mathematics. The number of rigorous fulkly developed proofs in serious maths, including especially math physics, can counted on the fingures of two hands. And math/phyiscal intuitionis crucial in the sciences -- my lacking is is one resain why I went into philosophy of science rather than theoretical physics. Technical ability without intuition, to parapghase Kant, is empty. But likewise (and this is my poiint) -- intuition without technical ability is empty.
as
> much as it does by
> measurement/experiment and 2) the numbers are only a
> beginning (or
> sometimes a diversion) as they always have to be
> interpreted
Everything has to be interpreted, this is the point I've been insisting on.
because
> when you run an experiment, you get all kinds of
> numbers, some of them
> you include in your data; some you don't.
Of course.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com